Amidst all this talk of OPECcutting production, a tiny beacon of sunshine on the energy horizon: companies are trying to win approval for a new nuclear plant, the first since 1973.
Posted by Jane Galt at March 31, 2004 11:35 AM | TrackBack | Technorati inbound linksAbout fricking time!
Posted by: Ken on March 31, 2004 12:12 PMThe article isn't terrible informative, but I wonder if they're going for traditional design or the newer (and potentially much much safer) Pebble Bed Reactor.
Posted by: BigFire on March 31, 2004 12:26 PMThe article isn't terrible informative, but I wonder if they're going for traditional design or the newer (and potentially much much safer) Pebble Bed Reactor.
Posted by: BigFire on March 31, 2004 12:28 PMThat was my question also, since I'm too lazy to re-enable my cookie acceptance in order to read the Jayson Blair Times. The pebble bed technology does seem promising. Here's hoping it isn't thwarted by scare-mongering.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 31, 2004 02:09 PMAlso,Saudi behavior seems to indicate that they wouldn't mind Bush being turned out in November.
Posted by: Will Allen on March 31, 2004 02:12 PMAgreed, not terribly informative, although there are a few quotes that could be pointing to pebble bed or similar:
The companies...have not specified what they would build or where. In fact, they have not made a committment to build at all. But they have agreed to spend tens of millions of dollars to get permission to build, and they anticipate tens of millions from the federal government, which requested such proposals in November. The money would go to finish design work useful for a new generation of reactors and to develop a firm estimate of what such plants would cost.
The consortium's other goal is to test a simplified licensing system created by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12 years ago to help the industry go from reactor order to electricity production in 5 years, as opposed to the 10 or 12 years it took under the previous system.
Whether investors will take the risk depends on estimates of future fuel and electricity prices at the time of approval, participants said. They said that they hoped to submit an application in 2008, and that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission might rule by 2010....
Popular Science had an article a few months ago detailinng a DoE plan to get a new reactor up and running by 2010 IIRC, possibly using pebble bed or similar technology and running at temperatures in excess of 1000F in order to moonlight as a hydrogen production device. If this is the same project, then apart from the tentative nature of the arrangements, it looks promising.
Posted by: anony-mouse on March 31, 2004 02:45 PMA ray of hope. But doubtful, unless DOE gets behind it - also doubtful politically, most people still think the longer the half-life the more radioactive and dangerous.
Posted by: John Anderson on March 31, 2004 03:59 PMI wouldn't worry too much about OPEC cutting production, though.
OPEC members always cheat, and the more "offical" production drops (and thus prices rise), the more incentive there is (which helps drop prices back a bit). Saudi Arabia, especially, simply can't afford to cut back very much - there stands, from all accounts, a good chance of civil war or other signficant threat to the House of Saud, if the welfare money from oil stops.
Posted by: Sigivald on March 31, 2004 04:22 PMAwesome. Maybe the west can approach technological advances like a grown up again. Maybe.
Been too fricken' long.
Posted by: Robin Goodfellow on March 31, 2004 07:28 PMThe key question is going to be that of siting. I would not be surprised to find that some Native American tribal land becomes the preferred siting, with substantial benefits to the tribe for allowing the project to be built there. This would avoid the obvious anti-nuclear pressures that will come to any state that would accept a new reactor.
Posted by: FXM on March 31, 2004 09:04 PMI certainly hope it never happens. I don't like the idea of more nuclear plants.
Posted by: GT on March 31, 2004 09:53 PMI certainly hope it never happens. I don't like the idea of more nuclear plants.
GT, very few people like the idea of more nuke plants. Obviously, it's not a question of nuke plants or not, it's a question of nuke plants or coal plants (or maybe, nuke plants or much more expensive electricity).
Posted by: PJ/Maryland on April 1, 2004 03:43 AMIf that's the choice I prefer coal plants. There is no perfect solution (when will we get warp engines?) but IMO the dangers of nuclear power are too much right now.
Posted by: GT on April 1, 2004 09:49 AM"If that's the choice I prefer coal plants. There is no perfect solution (when will we get warp engines?) but IMO the dangers of nuclear power are too much right now."
What dangers? How many people worldwide have been killed by nuclear power plants? And how many of those were killed by nuclear power plants that weren't built and operated by the Soviet Union?
Posted by: Ken on April 1, 2004 01:35 PM